I had to add minimum paragraph and sentence counts to the prompts it uses to keep it from trying to write a few terse sentences each time.

I noticed this in Claude (from DDG). It invariably tries to shorten sentences or make them more compact and concise. Sometimes that can be good, but most times long-winded sentences are what are needed.

and there is no way I can find to make it stop popping up giant intrusive ads for their other services every single time I open it.

Just like Firefox. There is no easy way to turn off being harassed by an intrusive pop-up telling me about a new update.

There used to be. It was a simple checkbox. But somewhere along the way someone had to justify their existence and removed that simple checkbox in favor of harassment.

Would like to add one tidbit because I've had this same conversation at work. The professor stated they used AI to help edit only after hundred of hours of writing. In other words, they did the heavy lifting and only used AI at the end to help refine what they had already done.

Is this any different than a human editor? If I write a book, do what I can to edit it down, then go to an editor who makes suggests, removes or reorders parts, and so on, is that any different than having AI do the same thing? In both cases you wrote the words. In both cases you went somewhere else to help edit.

If people claim that using AI to edit a work is "cheating" because it's no longer your work, then the same should apply to a human editor.

"Can we get it in cornflower blue?"

Don't mock it. Cornflower blue can be valuable.

Musk's data center near Memphis, KY has been illegally using pollution-producing methane-gas generators since day one even though he said they would be temporary. He does not have a permit for these generators and conveniently, the site is located near a poorer section of Memphis.

Needless to say, the EPA has not done anything about this even with its own decision of illegality.

No need to switch to generators when you can use them from day one and not have to worry about doing anything under the current regime.

Instead of rare books, let us rare video games or computers. Let's say someone bought a rare version of a Ninentendo system (an early edition) and said, "You know what, I'm going to see what happens if I apply a larger and larger force to it. Let's see how long it stays intact."

Mind you, they did a 3-D scan of the system so you can digitally see it, but the physical copy no longer exists.

How many of you would raise a stink at destroying it?

If not Nintendo, pick something you like and go back to its earlier days where something is rare and someone wants to destroy it, just because.

One of the things people complain about the digital age is loss of information. Sure, these books "exist" in a digital form today, but what about in 50 years?

This is why physical books are still superior to digital. We can still read books/scrolls/clay tablets from centuries ago. It is doubtful the same will be said for digital books.

Taking antiviral tablets for 8 to 12 weeks can cure more than 95% of cases.

As any anti-vaxxer like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr will tell you, if it's not 100% effective then it's useless. This drop in Hepatitis C cases can in no way be attributed to an antiviral medication. In reality, it's just people's natural immune system becoming more effective.

Note: if you have to ask, yes it is.

IPVM said that Flock subsequently blocked it from purchasing its cameras for testing.

That sounds so familiar. Just stop them from purchasing and you won't have to worry about them testing and finding flaws in your cameras.

which are?

Nothing in particular. Just the inability to move, muscle pain or stiffness, joint pain, and swollen, painful, or tender lymph glands in the armpit to name just a few. And that's just for dosage given under supervision of a doctor. If someone decides to use the horse version, they can have seizures or go blind. This is in addition to other neurologal or gastrointestinal issues. Or death.

So now that you have been factually informed, go ahead and make excuses and/or move the goalposts.

Is insider trading one of those preclusive constitutional authorities the Supreme Court was talking about? Or will this fall under an unofficial act?

It's hard to tell since the Supreme Court has said a president is immune from nearly every crime even though the Founding Fathers said the opposite.

I don't have to log in to view Reddit content. Never have. In fact, I was just perusing a subreddit two minutes ago without issue.

Tell that to the people who die in Death Valley when they are on a hike.

The thing prohibiting them from doing it is that the constitution doesn't grant them that power.

It also doesn't say they can't do it.

I'm sorry what? Where in the world is this a rule? You stop behind the white line, but up at it

You misread OP's comment. They're saying people stop a car length or more behind the white line rather than putting the nose of their car on the white line, and could they not do that.

If data that you own is not personal property, then what is it?

This is like saying the words on a page are not personal property, but the paper is. No court would agree to that.

Personal property is anything you own or have possesion of, including intangibles such as stock or copyrights, that is not attached to land or fixed to real estate. Data on a phone falls within that definition. The phone is a physical item you own. It's your personal property. The data within the phone is also personal property, though intangible.